Oregon’s EPR Law Just Survived Its First Constitutional Trial – What It Means for Every Producer

On August 27, 2026, the Oregon federal court upheld the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act against key constitutional challenges. For producers who had been banking on the earlier preliminary injunction to delay compliance, that shield is now gone. Oregon’s EPR program timelines and obligations are fully back on track.

Key Takeaways

On August 27, 2026, Judge Michael Simon issued a 71-page ruling in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, and judgment was entered on August 28, 2026. The district court found no dormant Commerce Clause violation in the Oregon EPR law and rejected the due process clause claims, making this a landmark moment for extended producer responsibility nationwide.

In this case, a trade association representing wholesalers argued that Oregon’s packaging EPR law imposed unconstitutional burdens on interstate commerce and delegated regulatory authority to a private entity without adequate oversight. The court rejected both arguments.
According to Ballard Spahr’s analysis, this is the first packaging extended producer responsibility case in the U.S. to go all the way to a five-day bench trial and result in a decision upholding a state’s extended producer responsibility law.
The February 2026 preliminary injunction protecting NAW members has been dissolved. For most covered producers, reporting obligations, membership fees, and program fees are enforceable now.
An appeal to the Ninth Circuit remains possible, and a related class action is pending before the same judge. The Oregon decision is not the final word, but per Nixon Peabody’s analysis, it strengthens the outlook for similar EPR laws in California and Colorado.
At Paper Tube Co., we help brands pivot packaging strategy toward low-plastic, paper-based formats that better align with EPR cost signals and Oregon’s broader plastic pollution goals.

1. What Just Happened in Oregon’s Federal Court?

On August 27, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a 71-page ruling in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon (No. 3:25-cv-1334-SI). The Oregon court’s ruling upheld the Recycling Modernization Act – Oregon’s packaging EPR law – against the remaining constitutional challenges brought by NAW, a national trade association.

The law itself is an extended producer responsibility program. It requires certain producers of covered packaging, printing and writing paper, and food serviceware to fund and help manage Oregon’s recycling system. Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act is the nation’s first operational packaging EPR law, enacted by the Oregon legislature in 2021.

The Oregon case was heard by Judge Michael Simon and is the first federal trial-court ruling to uphold a packaging EPR law.
The ruling came after a five-day bench trial (a trial decided by a judge rather than a jury) in July 2026.
It follows an earlier preliminary injunction granted on Feb. 6, 2026, which had temporarily blocked enforcement against NAW members.

The ruling removed a major legal obstacle, allowing Oregon to enforce producer obligations under the RMA. However, it does not end all Oregon litigation. NAW has publicly disagreed with the outcome and may appeal to the Ninth Circuit. A separate class action challenging the same law remains before Judge Simon.

2. Quick Refresher: What Is Oregon’s Packaging EPR Law?

Oregon’s plastic pollution crisis and an outdated recycling system prompted the Oregon legislature to enact the Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act in 2021. The statewide recycling act is designed to modernize recycling practices and expand access across communities in Oregon.

Here is what the law requires producers to do:

Join a state-approved producer responsibility organization (currently the Circular Action Alliance, which administers Oregon’s EPR program as its only approved PRO).
Report the volume of covered material they bring into Oregon, including packaging, paper products, and food serviceware.
Pay eco-modulated fees tied to the environmental impact of their packaging materials. These fees from producers fund upgrades to local recycling infrastructure in Oregon.

The EPR law shifts financial responsibility for recycling from local governments to producers. It aims to internalize end-of-life management costs and create a standardized statewide Recycling Acceptance List to simplify recycling for residents and improve convenience standards.

For brands already using paper-based, reusable, or easily recyclable packaging, this kind of producer responsibility program tends to work in their favor. Brands relying on complex mixed-plastic formats face steeper costs under eco-modulated fee structures.

3. From Injunction to Trial: How We Got to the Oregon EPR Law Ruling

If you followed our earlier coverage of who the Oregon EPR injunction actually affects, consider this the next chapter of that story.

Here is how the case unfolded, based on Ballard Spahr’s case timeline:

On Feb. 6, 2026, the federal court granted a preliminary injunction preventing Oregon from enforcing certain EPR requirements against NAW and its members. NAW’s lawsuit claimed Oregon’s EPR law violated due process and imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce.
Earlier in the case, other constitutional claims – including Equal Protection and some state court arguments – were dismissed, leaving the dormant Commerce Clause and federal due process challenges as the focus for trial.
A five-day bench trial took place in July 2026. Both sides presented evidence about the producer responsibility organization’s role, fee setting, agency oversight, and impacts on the national market.
Judge Simon then issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Aug. 27, 2026. The court concluded in Oregon’s favor on all remaining claims. Judgment was entered on August 28, 2026, and the preliminary injunction was dissolved.

If you paused action while the injunction was in place, the injunction shield is now gone. Compliance expectations are moving forward.

4. The Court’s Core Legal Holdings: Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process

The decision turned on two constitutional theories: the dormant Commerce Clause (which limits state laws that burden interstate commerce) and the due process clause (which requires fair procedures and proper allocation of governmental authority).

Here is what the court found, according to the National Law Review’s summary of the ruling:

Dormant Commerce Clause rejected. The Oregon court found no undue burden on interstate commerce from the EPR law. Oregon’s EPR law does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause because it does not discriminate against out-of-state producers. The court found no unreasonable “user fees” in Oregon’s EPR law and determined that incidental burdens on commerce were not “clearly excessive” relative to Oregon’s legitimate interests in public health, waste management, and pollution reduction.
Due process clause rejected. NAW argued that Oregon had unconstitutionally delegated regulatory authority to the Circular Action Alliance – a private entity – without sufficient oversight. The court noted that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon DEQ) retains oversight of the PRO and ultimate governmental authority over the program. CAA is Oregon’s only approved producer responsibility organization, but Oregon DEQ controls plan approvals, audits, and enforcement.
Procedural safeguards upheld. The court ruled that procedural safeguards for producers are adequate. Producers have access to administrative review, opportunities for judicial review, and are not required to pay disputed fees until appeals are exhausted.

The court also addressed and dismissed a First Amendment claim raised during proceedings. These holdings, as both Nixon Peabody and Ballard Spahr have noted, make this the first federal decision upholding a packaging EPR statute – and other courts considering similar constitutional challenges may look to it.

5. What This Means for Producers Operating in Oregon Right Now

This section translates the court’s ruling into immediate practical implications. Note that this is general information, not legal advice – producers should consult their own counsel for compliance decisions.

With the ruling and dissolution of the February 2026 injunction, Oregon’s EPR program includes mandatory compliance for covered producers, reporting, and fee payment. Here are the operational steps most producers will need to reassess:

Confirm producer status. The law requires producers to join a producer responsibility organization. The definition includes brand owners, importers, and in some cases retailers of covered products across covered material categories, including specifically identified materials and packaging formats.
Registration and reporting. Producers must report packaging supply data to the Circular Action Alliance. CAA began issuing invoices to producers in May 2025, and producers should ensure their data is accurate and up to date.
Fee schedules. The court did not invalidate the fee structure. CAA’s fee assessment methodology is confidential under Oregon law, but producers should treat fee schedules as enforceable. Fees are designed to reduce producer fees for those using recyclable, lower-impact materials and to increase costs for hard-to-recycle formats.
Exemptions. Small producers under $5 million in revenue are exempt from the law. Other exemptions exist for products recycled through private channels at responsible end markets.
Penalties. Producers face fines of up to $25,000 per day for noncompliance.

For a practical, packaging-focused guide to structuring internal conversations between sustainability, packaging, finance, and legal teams, see our EPR Packaging Compliance Checklist.

6. Ripple Effects Beyond Oregon: California, Colorado, and Other EPR States

The Oregon federal court’s decision is not binding on other states. However, according to Nixon Peabody’s analysis, it may be persuasive authority for judges considering pending constitutional challenges to packaging EPR laws in California and Colorado.

Cases like Nebraska v. Heller (involving California’s SB 54), NAW v. Ryan, and the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association case ILMA v. CDPHE in Colorado raise similar dormant Commerce Clause and due process arguments about PRO fee setting and agency oversight. Colorado’s EPR law faces comparable scrutiny.
Judges in those states will apply their own analysis. Specific statutory differences – such as the degree of agency control over PROs and transparency in fee methodologies – may affect how persuasive the Oregon ruling ultimately is.
For multi-state brands operating in a national market, the Oregon decision signals that courts may tolerate significant producer obligations where states can demonstrate robust oversight and strong environmental justifications. The success of Oregon’s EPR law may strengthen judicial backing for state-led environmental programs nationwide and encourage other states to implement similar EPR legislation for packaging. Oregon’s EPR law influences challenges in California and Colorado directly.
CAA has been approved in six of seven states with EPR laws, meaning the organizational model itself is spreading quickly, and producers should expect inconsistent obligations across state EPR programs unless federal law creates uniform standards.

Producers with national distribution should track litigation and rulemaking in EPR-adopting states – including California, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, Maryland, and Washington – because packaging design decisions made today will need to work across this patchwork of similar EPR laws.

7. Rethinking Packaging Strategy in an EPR World

The Oregon ruling connects to a broader shift: EPR programs make producers financially responsible for the end-of-life of their packaging. Material choice, recyclability, and design-for-disassembly are now business-critical decisions, not just marketing angles. The law incentivizes manufacturers to redesign packaging for better recyclability.

EPR fee structures often reward recyclable, compostable, or reusable packaging and penalize difficult-to-recycle plastics, multilayer films, and mixed-material formats. This directly affects the cost of doing business on a per metric ton basis.
Moving from plastic-heavy or composite formats to mono-material paper packaging – such as rigid paper tubes, folding cartons, and paper pouches – can reduce environmental impact and potentially lower long-term EPR costs where packaging EPR programs use eco-modulated fees.
Paper Tube Co. supports brands in this transition with custom FSC-certified paper tubes, rigid and folding boxes, and other paper-based formats designed to meet recyclability, compostability, and branding goals. Our recycling services alignment means your packaging is already built for the materials most state EPR programs prioritize.
Our in-house structural engineering and R&D teams can convert existing plastic or mixed-material packaging into durable, paper-first designs that still deliver premium unboxing experiences – an important differentiator as shelf competition increases and the packaging EPR law landscape grows more complex.

Think of it this way: switching a plastic canister to a paper tube does not just check a sustainability box. It simplifies your reporting, potentially lowers your fees, and signals credibility to consumers who care about environmental quality.

8. How Paper Tube Co. Helps You Stay Ahead of EPR Compliance Pressures

Paper Tube Co. does not provide legal advice. But we work alongside brands, agencies, and their counsel to align packaging design with emerging EPR expectations and sustainability commitments.

Material audits. We help identify plastic reduction opportunities in your packaging lineup and map them to covered material categories under state EPR programs.
Packaging roadmaps. We co-develop packaging strategies that anticipate EPR-driven restrictions, helping you standardize on EPR-friendlier materials without sacrificing brand identity or shelf impact.
Prototyping. Our custom manufacturing capabilities (any size, color, finish, and style of paper tube, plus complementary rigid boxes and envelopes) let brands test new formats quickly.
Small-batch pilots. Our Ready-Made blank tubes with no minimum order quantities make it easier for smaller producers and fast-moving teams to pilot lower-plastic packaging in Oregon and other EPR states before committing to large-scale tooling.
Compliance resources. Check out our EPR Packaging Compliance Checklist for a practical guide to structuring internal planning – and coordinate with your legal counsel to interpret statutory definitions, exemptions, and deadlines under your state’s producer responsibility program.

9. FAQs about the Oregon EPR Law Ruling and Producer Responsibilities

Here are answers to the most common questions we are hearing from brands since the ruling.

Does the Oregon EPR ruling mean all lawsuits are over?

No. The decision is a major milestone, but not the final word. NAW has indicated it disagrees with the ruling and may appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A separate class action challenging Oregon’s EPR law is still pending before Judge Simon in state court proceedings. While the law currently stands and Oregon DEQ is enforcing it, future appellate decisions could alter specific aspects. Producers should stay in touch with their legal counsel for updates rather than assuming the landscape is permanently settled.

Does this ruling automatically apply to California, Colorado, or other EPR states?

The Oregon federal court decision is not legally binding outside the District of Oregon. However, law firm analyses from Nixon Peabody and Ballard Spahr suggest it may be persuasive to judges considering similar constitutional challenges under California’s and Colorado’s EPR law frameworks. Each state’s statute is different, and each case depends on specific language and evidence. Producers should not assume identical outcomes, but can treat the Oregon result as a strong signal that well-designed state EPR programs can survive federal scrutiny.

How do I know if my company is a “producer” under Oregon’s EPR law?

Oregon’s EPR law defines producers based on roles in the supply chain – including brand owner, importer, or in some cases retailer – and the types of covered products placed on the Oregon market. The exact rules involve revenue thresholds, volume measurements, and exemptions. Companies selling into Oregon should review the statutory definitions and Oregon DEQ guidance with their legal counsel or compliance team.

Can switching to paper packaging really help under an EPR program?

Many EPR programs, including Oregon’s, are designed to reward readily recyclable and lower-impact materials and make hard-to-recycle plastics more expensive over time through higher fees or stricter design criteria. Shifting from complex plastics to mono-material paper formats – like the FSC-certified custom paper tubes and boxes offered by Paper Tube Co. – often simplifies recycling, improves consumer perception, and can better align with future eco-modulated fee structures that may reduce producer fees.

Where should our team start if we’ve delayed action because of the injunction?

First, confirm your status and obligations under Oregon’s EPR law with legal counsel. Then quickly inventory all packaging formats sold into Oregon, focusing on material composition, weights, and suppliers. Use Paper Tube Co.’s EPR Packaging Compliance Checklist as a practical guide to structuring internal conversations between sustainability, packaging, finance, and legal teams. Consider early packaging redesign projects where plastic reduction will have the biggest impact on both compliance costs and brand positioning.